This bill makes it very clear that a rifle which has a "fixed magazine" is not a rifle with a bullet button magazine, yes? If that's true, then why is it that we are limited to using 10 round magazines (or less) in bullet button builds? I thought the law said that a rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity >10 rounds was an assault weapon. But if I'm reading this right, a rifle with a bullet button doesn't have a fixed magazine (and we already know it doesn't have a detachable magazine or it wouldn't be exempt from the ban).

This bill makes it very clear that a rifle which has a "fixed magazine" is not a rifle with a bullet button magazine, yes? If that's true, then why is it that we are limited to using 10 round magazines (or less) in bullet button builds? I thought the law said that a rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity >10 rounds was an assault weapon. But if I'm reading this right, a rifle with a bullet button doesn't have a fixed magazine (and we already know it doesn't have a detachable magazine or it wouldn't be exempt from the ban).

This bill has nothing to do with bullet buttons. Yee's SB-47 is the one that would change anything about bullet buttons. And neither of these bills are laws yet.

(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135

Everyone really needs to get hot on this and get ready to take political action. This is a ban on ALL detachable magazine rifles. Darrel Steinberg wants to turn all of us into felons for daring to exercise fundamental rights.

Aside from the facts that
a. One will not be able to get another rifle,
b. Won't be able to sell, gift, will or otherwise transfer them in state, immediate family included,
c. Draconian storage and transportation requirements,
d. Step to the right, step to the left is a felony,
e. No kid will be able to start off a shooting hobby with a 10/22 or Marlin "assault rifles",
yes, it's a briar patch.

Aside from the facts that
a. One will not be able to get another rifle,
b. Won't be able to sell, gift, will or otherwise transfer them in state, immediate family included,
c. Draconian storage and transportation requirements,
d. Step to the right, step to the left is a felony,
e. No kid will be able to start off a shooting hobby with a 10/22 or Marlin "assault rifles",
yes, it's a briar patch.

Man I like this article even more now. Scalia is ready to decide this issue for us and I think I am going to like the result.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

The Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon? This is going to court heh! On a side note I was planning on spending some money to convert my AR-15s to featureless so I didn't have to register under SB-47. Now ill just buy more lowers instead !!!

a Firearm Ownership Record to be submitted, as specified, to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns, with prescribed exceptions, including firearms purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale transaction

So is this saying that for example longguns purchsed via DROS from a dealer would not need to be re-registered? Is that because they are basically admitting that they're using the DROS as a defacto registration system already?

__________________"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:

Quote:

"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

So is this saying that for example longguns purchsed via DROS from a dealer would not need to be re-registered? Is that because they are basically admitting that they're using the DROS as a defacto registration system already?

I think you're misreading it. I think it says even those purchased with a DROS indeed MUST be re-registered.

EDIT: I see the confusion now; the language can be interpreted in two different ways. As I mentioned in a post above, there is some vagueness in the language of this bill.

__________________
.
.

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

So is this saying that for example longguns purchsed via DROS from a dealer would not need to be re-registered? Is that because they are basically admitting that they're using the DROS as a defacto registration system already?

Long gun registration will already be active by that date, so no need to "double dip".

(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135

Also, the way the bill is written right now, it requires registering all currently owned bolt action rifles with detachable magazines. That would include CZ rimfires and centerfires, milsurp Swiss K31 and K1911, some Remingtons, Winchesters, etc.
Not as assault rifles, just registering with DOJ.

I think you're misreading it. I think it says even those purchased with a DROS indeed MUST be re-registered.

EDIT: I see the confusion now; the language can be interpreted in two different ways. As I mentioned in a post above, there is some vagueness in the language of this bill.

I was reading that to say that a longgun purchased from a dealer was a prescribed exception. Maybe that's because when the longgun registration kicks in next year any new longgun will automatically be registered via the DROS just like handguns have been.

__________________"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:

Quote:

"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

I was reading that to say that a longgun purchased from a dealer was a prescribed exception. Maybe that's because when the longgun registration kicks in next year any new longgun will automatically be registered via the DROS just like handguns have been.

(note: I said re-registered, when I should have said registered). My interpretation is that long-guns purchased even before the new registration law kicks in would have to be retroactively registered. For example, the AR lower and Mini-14 I bought last year would have to be registered. But I do see what you're saying too.

I guess we shouldn't be too quick to quibble about it yet; it's just a bill at this point, subject to amendment and clarification. But, we certainly DO need to mobilize to fight it.

__________________
.
.

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

Edit: This legislation amends an existing fee authority which is why it does not trigger prop 26.

__________________
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." Calvin Coolidge

I was reading that to say that a longgun purchased from a dealer was a prescribed exception. Maybe that's because when the longgun registration kicks in next year any new longgun will automatically be registered via the DROS just like handguns have been.

Can't you guys read the actual bill instead of the summary. It's pretty clear what's to be registered and what's exempted. All pre-91 unregistered handguns and all detachable magazine rifles and shotguns are subject to registration. Also the newly-minted "assault weapons" but it's a different registration:

Quote:

27566. (a) On and after July 1, 2014, a Firearm Ownership Record shall be submitted by prepaid mail or delivered in person to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns or possesses.
(b) The following firearms are exempt from subdivision (a):
(1) Handguns purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) transaction on and after January 1, 1991.
(2) Rifles without detachable magazines and shotguns purchased prior to January 1, 2014.
(3) Assault weapons registered with the department pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) Firearms for which a Firearm Ownership Record has been previously filed by the current owner.
(c) The department may charge a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the department for the reasonable costs of maintaining the Firearm Ownership Record program, but in no case more than nineteen dollars ($19) per transaction to process the Firearm Ownership Record. After the department establishes the fee amount, the department may adjust the fee amount annually as necessary to cover the reasonable costs of administering the program. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account.

Can't you guys read the actual bill instead of the summary. It's pretty clear what's to be registered and what's exempted. All pre-91 unregistered handguns and all detachable magazine rifles and shotguns are subject to registration. Also the newly-minted "assault weapons" but it's a different registration:

Sorry I don't read liar er lawyer.

__________________
There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
Charles de Montesquieu

“In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.”
Publius Cornelius Scipio

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

1. Rifles will not have to be "re-registered" because when long gun registration kicks in detachable magazine semi-autos and bullet button semi-autos will NOT be long guns, they will be Assault Weapons and require registration as Assault Weapons.

2. Get a serial added to any AR or AK you built from 80% because they will require registration.

3. A 2/3rds majority vote is not required because WE will be paying the costs for the new registration period.

4. MILLIONS of California gun owners are about to become felons. Even grandpas Marlin is going to be an Assault Weapon and so will junior's Ruger 10/22. Previous bans made it obvious that if it looked "military" it was probably an Assault Weapon, this time around its much more vague and many Californians will likely not realize they have to register.

5. This bill is the perfect vehicle for a SCOTUS challenge... It appears to be the long gun equivalent of Heller and McDonald.

1. Rifles will not have to be "re-registered" because when long gun registration kicks in detachable magazine semi-autos and bullet button semi-autos will NOT be long guns, they will be Assault Weapons and require registration as Assault Weapons.
.

Yeah, but firearms that were NEVER registered before, but have a detachable magazine, regardless of action type, and purchased before 2014, WILL HAVE TO BE REGISTERED!!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!! That's what I read. Again, am I wrong?

__________________
.
.

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

Why 80% lowers? This will ban everything from AKs and ARs to 10/22s as assault weapons.

Negating the law by refusal is better that complying when the law is this broad. Any semi-rifle that accepts a magazine will be labeled this way and as such will be subject to the laws and regulations of RAWs that are owned by people now.

Its unreasonable and unethical for any 2A supporter to comply with this law if it is passed.

You said pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject
"Its unreasonable and unethical for any 2A supporter to comply with this law if it is passed."

My reading is this: someone had a C&R M-1 Garand prior to long gun registration and no Form 4473 was required when the C&R rifle was bought back in the 90s. No registration required January 1, 2014.

Someone had an M-1 Carbine bought as a C&R rifle back in the 1990s with no Form 4473, no registration as a long gun required but because it is a semi-auto with a detachable magazine it is now an "Assault Weapon" and therefore must be registered as a RAW.

Ok, so I have a bolt action Savage 30-06 with a 4 round detachable magazine. I bought it about 6 years ago from Big 5, so it had the ten day wait and the attendant background check and paperwork, so I assume it does not need to be done again. Right?

On the other hand, the bill says the exemption for previous DROS is only handguns, so WTF am I supposed to do? If this passes of course...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington 1790

Ok, so I have a bolt action Savage 30-06 with a 4 round detachable magazine. I bought it about 6 years ago from Big 5, so it had the ten day wait and the attendant background check and paperwork, so I assume it does not need to be done again. Right?

.

Wrong. It was DROS'd, but not registered. If this bill were to become law (as written) you would have to file a "Firearm Ownership Record", which was not filed for the rifle previously. As written, the law is retroactive.

__________________
.
.

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Seems the "gov" is just looking for ways to price us out of ownership.

They tried this with tobacco tax + restrictions, and it really took a toll on the smokers (although many people still smoke-not as much as pretax/restrictions)

Already discussion of gun insurance and now these extra fees

I found this piece interesting-

(c) The department may charge a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the department for the reasonable costs of maintaining the Firearm Ownership Record program, but in no case more than nineteen dollars ($19) per transaction to process the Firearm Ownership Record. After the department establishes the fee amount, the department may adjust the fee amount annually as necessary to cover the reasonable costs of administering the program. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account.

I wish I shared the optimism of some that this is going to be an easy win in court. You realize that a preliminary injunction will require an immediate harm in order to be granted. So what is the immediate harm? Registration? Good luck getting a CA court to agree that registration is a bad thing. Inability to transfer or sell is probably the closest thing, but we'd better not get caught with our pants down on the counter argument that adding one more gun to a collection is not an immediate harm.

All I'm saying is, this is REALLY bad. Do NOT underestimate these people just because they make grammatical errors on the first draft. Do not think that this will result in an immediate decision on the protected nature of semi autos. They are not banning them, they are registering them, and thats a much harder fight. And besides that, we have enough fights on our hands, this will back-burner carry cases and magazines, roster, etc.

Call, email, fax. Do what you have to do to get the word out. I know that this will get a lot of fence sitters off their butts, but only if WE get the word out. The legislature sure as he11 wont do it for us, they want this to go in under the radar.

I hope you are right in your optimism Gene. The one thing I can say is that this at least accelerates the battle. If we do manage to win this one, it could be very big.